The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: John Shaw on March 10, 2010, 11:16:23 PM
-
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A10129%09%09&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y
A10129 Summary:
BILL NO A10129
SAME AS No same as
SPONSOR Ortiz (MS)
COSPNSR Markey
MLTSPNSR Perry
Add S399-bbb, Gen Bus L
Prohibits the use of salt by restaurants in the preparation of food by
restaurants.
Go to top
A10129 Memo:
BILL NUMBER:A10129
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the general business law, in relation to
prohibiting the use of salt in the preparation of food by restaurants
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To prohibit restaurants from using
salt when preparing customers' meals. Customers will have the discretion
to add salt to their own meal after it has been prepared.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The general business law is amended by
adding a new section 399-bbb, which would prohibit the use of salt by
owner or operators of a restaurant when preparing food for consumption
by customers.
JUSTIFICATION: This legislation will give customers the option to add
salt after the meal has been prepared for them. In this way, consumers
have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given
the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles.
A report issued by the World Health Organization indicated that three
quarters or more of the sodium intake in the United States comes from
processed or restaurant foods, Studies have also proven that lowering
the amount of salt people eat, even by small amounts, could reduce cases
of heart disease, stroke, and heart attacks as much as reductions in
smoking, obesity, and cholesterol levels. The study also stated that if
everyone consumed half a teaspoon less per day, there would be between
54,000 and 99,000 fewer heart attacks each year and between 44,000 and
92,000 fewer deaths.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: None.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: None.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it
shall have become law.
Go to top
A10129 Text:
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________
10129
I N A S S E M B L Y
March 5, 2010
___________
Introduced by M. of A. ORTIZ, MARKEY -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A.
PERRY -- read once and referred to the Committee on Health
AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to prohibiting the
use of salt in the preparation of food by restaurants
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. The general business law is amended by adding a new section
2 399-bbb to read as follows:
3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR
4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA-
5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT,
6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU-
7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.
8 2. WHENEVER THERE SHALL BE A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION AN APPLICATION
9 MAY BE MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
10 STATE OF NEW YORK TO A COURT OR JUSTICE HAVING JURISDICTION BY A SPECIAL
11 PROCEEDING TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION, AND UPON NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT OF
12 NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS, TO ENJOIN AND RESTRAIN THE CONTINUANCE OF SUCH
13 VIOLATIONS; AND IF IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT OR
14 JUSTICE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS, IN FACT, VIOLATED THIS SECTION, AN
15 INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT OR JUSTICE, ENJOINING AND
16 RESTRAINING ANY FURTHER VIOLATIONS, WITHOUT REQUIRING PROOF THAT ANY
17 PERSON HAS, IN FACT, BEEN INJURED OR DAMAGED THEREBY. IN ANY SUCH
18 PROCEEDING, THE COURT MAY MAKE ALLOWANCES TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS
19 PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH SIX OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION EIGHTY-THREE
20 HUNDRED THREE OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, AND DIRECT RESTITU-
21 TION. WHENEVER THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS
22 SECTION HAS OCCURRED, THE COURT MAY IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE
23 THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH VIOLATION. EACH USE OF SALT IN
24 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE VIOLATION. IN
25 CONNECTION WITH ANY SUCH PROPOSED APPLICATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
26 AUTHORIZED TO TAKE PROOF AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS
27 AND TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND
28 RULES.
29 S 2. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall
30 have become a law.
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD16210-01-0
-
Does Chef snot count?
-
I was actually thinking that this would in fact increase salt consumption. Now people who wouldn't have touched the salt shaker will probably grab it and apply far too much salt to their meal.
-
That won't go anywhere. Its funny that a dumbfuck will propose it.
Limiting the ability of a chef to use a very basic ingredient in preparation will cause huge problems. Its not just a matter of salting for taste, it undermines preparation techniques. Think of actual chefs blowing a brain gasket in expensive restaurants, everything has salt in it.
But it'll probably end up with a maximum sodium content in a typical fast-food meal - which will mean your fries will come unsalted in a "value meal" I can't imagine how they would legislate the sodium in a typical entree or side dish in a family-style restaurant. It'd be impossible.
-
they're gonna have a fed stationed in every restaurant kitchen, undercover as a dishwasher of course....
-
Politicians do this sort of crap because they are "law MAKERS." It's what they do. Trouble is, all the really good stuff (prohibitions against rape, murder, and the like) has already been covered. And so, to weld power, they have to turn to silly measures.
Eventually, some idiot (they may have banned the use of that term) will advocate for a measure describing how people should wipe their ass. "It must be done on recyclable paper, and in a clockwise manner."
-
A Manhattan chef and a lawmaker were split-screen on the news today, naturally the chef was saying he shouldn't be subject to a restriction in such a basic ingredient.
The lawmaker told him to learn how to cook, and followed that mind-numbingly idiotic statement with saying when the people are footing the bill in social healthcare, it is in the best interests of the public good to keep the population as healthy as possible.
-
A Manhattan chef and a lawmaker were split-screen on the news today, naturally the chef was saying he shouldn't be subject to a restriction in such a basic ingredient.
The lawmaker told him to learn how to cook, and followed that mind-numbingly idiotic statement with saying when the people are footing the bill in social healthcare, it is in the best interests of the public good to keep the population as healthy as possible.
*Twitch*
-
The lawmaker told him to learn how to cook, and followed that mind-numbingly idiotic statement with saying when the people are footing the bill in social healthcare, it is in the best interests of the public good to keep the population as healthy as possible.
That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.
I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it.
-
*Twitch*
Try watching it, I was dumbstruck at the audacity of the cocksucker.
He was some sort of quasi-politico health department asshole, med-cred bureaucrat. And he was grinning, which I think was the most disturbing detail. He had this pious glow that made me want to burn a church down.
-
That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.
I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it.
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
-
The lawmaker told him to learn how to cook, and followed that mind-numbingly idiotic statement with saying when the people are footing the bill in social healthcare, it is in the best interests of the public good to keep the population as healthy as possible.
That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.
I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it.
I suppose the only way to realistically support healthy initiatives is to levy taxes upon the unhealthy behaviors, thus causing a shift towards responsible health practices, and allowing the social drain to pay for itself. Sodium tax would be largely earmarked towards hypertension-related health issues, and so forth. Not that I agree with it, but if those programs are already in place, that'd be my thrust were I a lawmaker.
-
That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.
I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it.
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
You believe its okay to intrude on sovereign governments? If so, my first vote goes toward crafting Israeli diplomatic relations with its neighbors.
-
you CAN'T cook without salt.
period.***
and, i'm not talking about mcdonalds french fries, or shitty chinee food..
i'm talking about real food.
real sauces.
small doses of salt are necessary to bring out flavors, without them tasting salty.
shit, canned soups have enuff sodium in em to choke a horse & salt-cure the fucker from the inside.
how bout gatorade?
these arrogant politicians have FAR greater problems to concern themselves with, than restaurants salting food...
fuckin' a...fast food/pre-prepared food is the problem in this country....why aren't they going after these shit-bags?
once again, how are ''they'' going to implement enforcement???
chefs be buyin salt from coke-dealer-type guys, under trench coats...
salt-sniffin' dogs bein' trained right now...
***unless you're serving cardboard souffle...which is precisely what everything will taste like w/out salt.
-
That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.
I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it.
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
You believe its okay to intrude on sovereign governments? If so, my first vote goes toward crafting Israeli diplomatic relations with its neighbors.
No, but if its between tyranny here or there I vote for there.
-
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
Every government already directly intrudes on the life of its citizens by its very existence. If I'm going to have money taken from me against my will, then I'd rather have it spent on my own healthcare than on controlling the inhabitants of an entirely different country.
-
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
Every government already directly intrudes on the life of its citizens by its very existence. If I'm going to have money taken from me against my will, then I'd rather have it spent on my own healthcare than on controlling the inhabitants of an entirely different country.
where do you want it to stop?
cigarettes, or alcohol, real butter, salt, sugary treats, or swearing in front of your kids in your home?
foot-in-the-door, bitch.....foot-in-the-door...
-
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
Every government already directly intrudes on the life of its citizens by its very existence. If I'm going to have money taken from me against my will, then I'd rather have it spent on my own healthcare than on controlling the inhabitants of an entirely different country.
Except they're gonna do both. There is no choice.
-
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
Every government already directly intrudes on the life of its citizens by its very existence. If I'm going to have money taken from me against my will, then I'd rather have it spent on my own healthcare than on controlling the inhabitants of an entirely different country.
Except they're gonna do both. There is no choice.
Oh, I know. But is it really so bizarre to say that you'd rather have government do some things than others? If some guy is going to accost me in an alley and take my wallet, am I allowed to prefer that he use the money to buy me a Diet Coke rather than somebody else? Or worse, spend it on bullets to shoot that person in the ass?
-
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
Every government already directly intrudes on the life of its citizens by its very existence. If I'm going to have money taken from me against my will, then I'd rather have it spent on my own healthcare than on controlling the inhabitants of an entirely different country.
Except they're gonna do both. There is no choice.
Oh, I know. But is it really so bizarre to say that you'd rather have government do some things than others? If some guy is going to accost me in an alley and take my wallet, am I allowed to prefer that he use the money to buy me a Diet Coke rather than somebody else? Or worse, spend it on bullets to shoot that person in the ass?
Freedom people have issues delineating degrees of evil. It's all evil, and it all sucks, or as Bitchy Old Rand put it: "In any compromise between food and poison, only death wins."
Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just pointing out that yeah, in this crowd, your opinion might be looked at as bizarre.
Of course, I'd never answer the question with anything other than "I don't agree with anything the gooberment does, and if forced to make a choice, I'd refuse to because that would give them a feeling of legitimacy."
But you know me, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon.
-
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
Every government already directly intrudes on the life of its citizens by its very existence. If I'm going to have money taken from me against my will, then I'd rather have it spent on my own healthcare than on controlling the inhabitants of an entirely different country.
I see your point.
-
That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.
I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it.
Did I read you right?
You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.
You believe its okay to intrude on sovereign governments? If so, my first vote goes toward crafting Israeli diplomatic relations with its neighbors.
No, but if its between tyranny here or there I vote for there.
Tyranny over there is much less moral, though.
-
No, but if its between tyranny here or there I vote for there.
Tyranny over there is much less moral, though.
Yeah, but it affects you less.